w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Shanthi v/s M/s. R. Udayavarliah Charities, represented by Managing Trustee & Trustee & Another

    C.R.P. No. 3564 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
    Decided On, 26 July 2013
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAVICHANDRABAABU
    For the Petitioner: J. Ram, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Chanakya, Advocate.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2012 on the file of the Registrar, Small Causes Court at Chennai in E.P.No.11 of 2008 in Eject. Suit No.22 of 2006.)

1. The Civil Revision Petition was filed against the judgment and decree made in E.P.No.11/2008 in Eject.Suit No.22/2006. The Court below allowed the said execution petition and order delivery of the suit property.

2. When the matter was listed before me on 13.06.2013 the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner has not paid the monthly rent after 01.01.2012 and thus the total arrears payable comes to Rs.27,000/-. Therefore this Court granted interim stay of the order passed in E.P. subject to a condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.27,000/- to the respondent within a period of three weeks. Apart from making such payment, the petitioner was also directed to pay periodical monthly rent without any default. After such order was made on 13.06.2013, today the matter is listed before me.

3. Now it is represented by both the counsel that conditional order is complied with in time. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though he has challenged the order passed in execution petition, since the petitioner had already filed an application to set aside the exparte decree before the trial court with condone delay, suitable direction may be issued to the trial court to take up those applications and dispose the same on merits within the time stipulated by this Court.

4. It is not in dispute that the decree passed by the Court below is only an exparte decree. No doubt the decree holder filed execution petition and obtained an order for delivery. Since the petitioner has filed application to set aside the exparte decree with condone delay petition, etc., and the same are in S.R. stage, I find that the trial court can be directed to dispose of the said applications on merits and in accordance with law and that will give quietus to the matter. Therefore without expressing any view on the merits and contentions of the rival parties, I direct the Court below to take up the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as seeking to set aside the exparte decree passed in Eject.Suit.No.22/2006, give opportunity of hearing to both sides and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the order passed in E.P.No.11/2008 shall be kept in abeyance. 5. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R